Financial Crimes
Stablecoin issuers face a new AML review gate
The FDIC would add a new part 350 framework for permitted payment stablecoin issuers and require a formal FinCEN consult before certain enforcement or supervisory steps move ahead.
The FDIC is proposing a tighter rulebook for supervised stablecoin issuers. The plan would fold AML/CFT and sanctions compliance into part 350, with FinCEN getting a defined role before some agency actions.
- FDIC would add a new stablecoin compliance section to part 350.
- FinCEN would get a formal review role before some enforcement steps.
- The proposal also raises how sensitive information can be shared between agencies.
- Stablecoin oversight would be tied more tightly to anti-money-laundering and sanctions rules.
- Stablecoin issuers trying to stay inside the federally supervised banking system would have to clear a new anti-money-laundering and sanctions lane
Stablecoin issuers trying to stay inside the federally supervised banking system would have to clear a new anti-money-laundering and sanctions lane. The FDIC proposal would create subpart C of part 350 for permitted payment stablecoin issuers, or PPSIs, and build a notice-and-consultation framework with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, before certain enforcement or supervisory actions move forward.
A rulebook built around compliance
At the center of the proposal is Proposed Sec. 350.200, which would define the terms used throughout the new section. That sounds dry, but it is the scaffolding for how the rest of the rule would work, from what counts as a PPSI anti-money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT, program to how the FDIC reads its own enforcement authority.
The rule would also anchor those stablecoin requirements to existing federal law, including the Bank Secrecy Act and related statutory references. In plain English, the FDIC is not treating this as a side policy. It is trying to slot stablecoin oversight into the same legal machinery that already governs other financial-crime controls.
FinCEN’s seat at the table
The most consequential change is the proposed consultation process. When the FDIC wants to start an AML/CFT enforcement action, or a significant AML/CFT supervisory action, the proposal would require a formal notice-and-consultation framework with FinCEN. That gives the Treasury Department’s financial-crimes bureau a defined role before the FDIC takes certain steps.
For firms handling dollar-backed digital tokens, that matters because the review would not be limited to code, reserves or customer growth. It would also put the focus on whether the issuer can police illicit finance, screen sanctions risks and keep the federal examiners satisfied that the controls are real, not just written down.
The information-sharing question
The proposal also leaves room for two different ways to let the FDIC share information with the FinCEN Director. That is the part that could shape how sensitive material moves between agencies and how much protection follows it when it does.
The agency has not settled that question yet, which means the final version could still change how far the new stablecoin regime reaches into privileged or confidential material. But the direction is clear: the FDIC wants a more formal enforcement structure for PPSI AML/CFT programs, with FinCEN built into the design.